| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 16:40:51 -0400 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, lizefan@...wei.com, mingo@...hat.com, richard@....at, Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 8/8] cgroup: implement the PIDs subsystem Hello, Thomas. On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 03:11:34PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > That's complete and utter nonsense. What has the parent limit to do > with the overflow of the child limit? > > parent: limit 100 usecnt 80 > child: limit 10 usecnt 10 > > So moving anything into child is violating the constraints and has to > be refused. Anything else is just dirty hackery. And the one who's moving the process there might as well raise the limit in the child all the same. It doesn't make any difference without delegation and with delegation we need to restrict migration at the exactly same junctions. We can't delegate otherwise. And the resource limit for the delegated subtree is enforced from its parent which delegatee can't escape how it changes the configuration or moves processes around. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists